Women in Combat: Another Nail in the Coffin

February 8, 2013

We at Monomakhos try to look at things with as much clarity as possible. This is fairly easy to do when one holds to a Christocentric approach. Issues such homosexual “marriage” and women in combat are not that difficult for us to fathom because we understand the underlying falsehoods that inform them. This does not mean that we don’t see a broken world around us with real people hurting or that we are bigots who see everything in a black-or-white manner. Life is far more complicated than that. (Just so you know, on Judgment Day I’m going to throw myself at the Lord’s feet and plead guilty to everything, begging for His mercy.)

Nevertheless, it is astounding to the extent that secular realism mimics the divine order (even if imperfectly). Regarding the issue of women in combat, this is really a no-brainer. Hence we publish the following essay which lays out in grim, hyper-realistic detail what is at stake in this insanity.

In a saner world, this would put the matter to rest but as the Poet Schiller stated, “against stupidity the gods themselves wrestle in vain.”

Women in Combat

On January 23, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat. He gave the generals three years to open up all positions to women, and if any of them think there is a job women can’t do, they’ll have to explain themselves.

The combat arms—infantry, armor, and artillery—are closed to women for good reasons: They can’t do the job, and they keep men from doing the job.

Drones and laser-guided munitions haven’t changed things for a grunt: You still have to run up hills with an 80-pound pack, live in dirt for weeks, and hump 96-pound 155mm artillery shells onto the back of a truck. Your buddies count on you to carry them out of the fight if they are wounded, and they can’t count on someone with half the upper-body strength of a man.

An extensive 1994 Army study of men and women—written by a woman—discovered the obvious: “The average woman does not have the same physical capacity, nor can she be trained to have the same physical capacity as the average man.” There were tests with practically no overlap. On Maximum Lifting Strength, the worst 2 percent of men were at the 92nd percentile for women.

Soldiers may have to kill or be killed at close quarters. All your enemy needs is an extra inch of reach, an extra pound of muscle, or an extra burst of speed, and he will use that advantage to kill you. No one is talking about putting women on professional sports teams—we might lose a game!—but the military is now asking for weak links that could get the whole squad killed.

Last year, a lady Marine captain named Katie Petronio wrote an article for the Marine Corps Gazette called “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.” She is a pretty tough gal—she says she could bench-press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds—but when she worked with men in the field, “the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines.”

“A soldier’s job is to find the enemy and kill him—yes, him—not to be part of a giant experiment in egalitarian fantasy.”

She writes that if women join up, the infantry is “going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.” Some of these toy soldiers will break before they even see the enemy and then spend their lives drawing disability pay they don’t deserve.
Women in combat? Combat means close quarters. During the 2003 Iraq invasion, Marine Ryan Smith rode in an amphibious assault vehicle designed for 15 men. There were breakdowns and “by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back.” They went 48 straight hours in the vehicle with no sanitation, and men got dysentery. “When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE [meals ready to eat] bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.”

When they got to Baghdad:

We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there…naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Squad Leader Smith does not want women in combat.

As ex-Marine John Luddy explained in a Heritage Foundation report, there are other reasons why women don’t belong at the front:

[I]n the one historical case where women were deliberately placed in combat—in Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War—they were removed within weeks. The reason: It was clear that men reacted to the presence of women by trying to protect them and aiding them when they became casualties instead of continuing to attack. The Israelis also learned that unit morale was seriously damaged when men saw women killed and injured on the battlefield.

Men take crazy risks to make sure women are not captured and to rescue them if they are. Remember Jessica Lynch, the 100-pound supply clerk who got into a traffic accident during the Iraq invasion and was taken prisoner? The Army told colossal lies about her Rambo-style knife fight with Iraqis—she went down on her knees to pray and never fired a shot—and then went to absurd lengths to get her back. There was a diversionary battle to draw off Iraqi troops, and a joint team of Delta Force, Army Rangers, Navy Seals, and Air Force Pararescue Jumpers—with much better things to do—snatched her from a hospital that turned out to be unguarded.

PFC Lynch was lucky. She fell into the hands of a regular Army that treated her well. But what would the Taliban do with a captured American woman? Gang-rape her, for sure. Then would she disappear into the most wretched brothel in Afghanistan or come back mutilated and pregnant and a psychological wreck?

Finally, there is sex. As one Marine Corps veteran explains, “Male bonding is what takes the hill. And male bonding just doesn’t happen with women around.”
A soldier recently put it this way on a Web page:

The Infantry squad is, hands friggen’ down, the backbone of any armed conflict. They can do anything, anywhere, anytime—because the lives of their buddies depend on it. The bond between men in an Infantry squad is like no other….The addition of women would utterly turn the squad’s level of cohesion and unity upside-down faster than anything. The female would become the center of attention, and the butt-end of every joke. Morale would be a crushing weight dragging the squad down into the dirt.

It destroys what the Army calls “group cohesion” if a man has been jilted by the squad tart and then has to listen to her squealing all night in someone else’s foxhole.

The military hands out condoms as if they were candy, but accidents happen. In the 1990s, Navy Captain Martha Whitehead testified before a military commission that women were three times more likely to be “non-deployable” than men, and that 47 percent of the time it was because they were pregnant.

In 2009, so many pregnant lady soldiers were being evacuated from Iraq that Major General Anthony Cucolo ordered a court martial and possible jail time for any woman in his command who got pregnant—and for the man responsible. “I’ve got a mission to do.” he said. “I’m given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them.”

There are other problems. From 2006 to 2011, the rate of violent sex crimes in the military shot up 64 percent, with an estimated 19,000 sexual assaults in 2010 alone. Women are 14 percent of Army personnel but are 95 percent of sex-crime victims. (The Army warns there will be more cases of men raping men now that homosexuals don’t have to worry about being kicked out, but that is a different problem.)General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says he thinks women in combat will help solve the problem of sexual harassment. He pushed Leon Panetta very hard to lift the ban. “I have to believe,” he explains, “that the more we can treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally.” This is certifiably insane.

A man in fighting trim runs on testosterone. That is what makes him an effective killer; it also makes him think about sex every minute of the day. Putting women on the battlefield is like shoving the cheerleaders into the locker room with the team after a football game and locking the doors.

Combat troops are young men who kill people for a living. In the all-volunteer Army they are there because they like killing people. The military throws young women at them and is shocked—shocked—to discover that the men don’t always behave like gentlemen. So the Navy has mandatory anti-sex-assault training for every sailor, and the Army has SHARP (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response & Prevention). They don’t change their idiotic policies; they try to change men.
When Leon Panetta made his announcement, President Obama was delighted:

Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love.

He got it exactly backward. Men go to war precisely so that their mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters don’t have to go. War is ultimately about national survival. Half the men could die in combat but if women survive, the men who are left can keep the nation going. A society that sends child-bearers into combat has gone mad.

Secretary of the Army Togo West once said that keeping women out of combat slows their promotions and prevents them “from reaching their full potential.” The only men who talk like that wear ribbons instead of helmets. A soldier’s job is to find the enemy and kill him—yes, him—not to be part of a giant experiment in egalitarian fantasy. Only degenerate countries put women in combat.

Of course, it will work for a while—with higher casualties, grinding inefficiencies, and endless lies and cover-ups. But when the century draws to a close and the Chinese write the history of what used to be the United States, they will note that it was a sure sign the place was doomed when the American soldier became a social worker with a rifle instead of a professional killer.

I suppose we should regard this as 'social engineering'.
It's one thing to have men and women to serve together on ships where quarters can be segregated, and the skills needed are more technological, but in land combat it seems a far reach at best. Not to say that women have served honorably and bravely, and still do, and will do so, but to put them in combat units where they meet the enemy face to face is foolish in my view, especially since most of the future wars we will fight (God forbid!) will be against Muslims who have small regard for women anyway.

Your point, about future conflicts likely involving Muslim countries, is the one anti-women in combat argument we agree with. My spouse is also a military veteran, who has deployed two handful of times to Iraq/Afghanistan/Middle East. IMO, based on long talks with him, it is possible that women in a combat arms units could jeopardize the safety and success of possible missions - especially small units that have to arrange day-to-day negotiations with village elders, in rural areas. Muslim Village elders may refuse to speak with or negotiate with the US troops based solely on the presence of a female among the ranks.

My husband has spoken clearly about his feelings regarding women in combat. If they can
1. Meet EXACTELY the same PT requirements, training requirements, and psych evaluations so as not to place the unit/team at a physical disadvantage and therefore at increased risk
2. Maintain celibacy prior to and during a deployment, so as not to leave the unit/team a person short due to pregnancy and therefore at increased risk
3. Accept that some geographical assignments may not work well with a female soldier mission, leaving units/teams in non-negotiable situations and therefore at increased risk...
....then he feels that there may be no justifiable reason to keep said female from serving within a combat arms unit.

All of his "feelings regarding women in combat" are about a woman's side of the deal.

He's completely ignoring the impact on the men.

Typical of men. Protect women at their own expense.

As a woman, I am so tired of women demanding to have and do everything men have and do.

What's so awful about just being a woman?

What do you think of men who insist that they are women trapped in male bodies and insisting that a surgeon mutilate them so that they can have and do everything women have and do?

Women seem to be always tantruming about one thing or another. Things are never quite good enough for us. First we want to be unpregnant at any time so that we can compete with our male counterparts in the business world. So give us legal abortion.

Never mind that a human being is slaughtered; I've got to have my way.

What if men began to demand the ability to BE pregnant? What if they insisted on a surgery that would provide them with a uterus, and drugs to make their bodies maintain a pregnancy?

You ask, "What's so awful about being a woman" and then proceed to complain about how women are frivolous, demanding, irresponsible and flat out crazy, because we believe in gender mutilation and men birthing children. Sounds like YOU think there is something wrong with being a woman! - In truth, men and women were created to compliment one another, but there have been times when God chose a woman over a man to LEAD men into combat. Deborah comes to mind. Joan of Arc is another. If God sees women as capable of combat (not that all women should or would), why would an Orthodox Christian have a problem with it?

The real problem is two fold: lack of a through grounding and common understanding of what male and female mean Christologically and a contentious ideological political environment. It is difficult enough to translate spiritual reality into public policy. Perhaps impossible when we don't have a strong common vision.

We need our bishops to lead us into the truth.
!!

Also, there is a personal element: I know what it means to be a Christian man. I fail at it frequently, but I know. What I don't like is the coercive element in the largely feminist ideology that I shouldn't be that way. That element is also in the Church.

Further, we should not judge on the basis of those far outside the norm and force everyone into that paradigm.

The only thing wrong with being a woman, Ms. Sheppard, is that women are sinners, and that means they do things that earn them complaint and criticism.

Being able to accept that my half of the human race is capable of doing things wrong doesn't even come close to meaning that I think there is something wrong with being a woman! Geez!

You wrote that "In truth, men and women were created to compliment one another, but there have been times when God chose a woman over a man to LEAD men into combat."

I think you meant "complement", eh? (I do think they were created to compliment each other, as well; love that Freudian slip... ) Regardless, with that argument, we could make the case for ordaining women to be priests, couldn't we?

God has never chosen a man to be a mother. Nor a woman to be a priest.

What do you make of that? Is it meaningless?

Just because there have been times in human history when a woman has led men in battle, or a man has had to raise his babies himself doesn't mean we can generalise those roles and switch them out willy nilly. Does it?

Do you honestly not see what sense the arguments that the author of the essay is making?

I DID mean complement! Thank you!!! - To answer your question, yes, I DO see the argument, but I don't think he is making it very well. He is vilifying women (while seemly supporting them) and excusing the aberrant behavior of men, e.g. rape. If he had approached the subject from a more practical POV, e.g. having to set up separate bathrooms, complications that can ensue BETWEEN men and women, etc., I might have taken him more seriously. I stopped listening when he said women interfered with the "testosterone" necessary to create "killing machines."

Gail, I hope you misunderstood me. I'm not a war-monger, nor do I believe that women should be shackled to the bedroom and the kitchen. I was just trying to come to grips with this unisexualist insanity that can't see the differences between men and women and the loss of martial vigor that introducing women into the front lines will cause. Nor I am in favor of homosexual rape or heterosexual rape for that matter.

After reading your blog for so long (and enjoying it, BTW), I understand your position. But as conservatives, we have to be careful who we "hitch our wagons to," so to speak. There are misogynistic undertones to this piece. The premise is sound, but the reasoning is off.

Hi Ronda,
You've wandered into issues that I wasn't attempting to address, nor suggesting as ideas. My comment was based on this particular article which is about "Woman in Combat."

It might be easiest for me to try to address your thoughts/paragraphs one by one, as you laid them out in that way in your original response.

Paragraph 1- "I guess. At be your husband needs to read this essay, eh?"
- He did read the essay.

Paragraph 2- "All his feeling regarding women in combat are about a woman's side of the deal."
- Yes, you are correct. In response to the article, all of his "feelings" were about the women's side of the deal. Since this is new, it's primarily what my husband and I talked about. Basically.....what situation, if any, would he feel working in combat with woman would be successful.

Paragraph 3- "He's completely ignoring the impact on men."
- I believe his immediate concern was whether there would be an increased safety risk to the men. That was stated in my original answer. Forgive me if I poorly worded that concern of his. Also, I believe he outright dismissed some of the author's concerns once he hit the "tart" comment.

Paragraph 4- "Typical of Men. Protect woman at their own expense."
- My husband has been active duty, on an elite team, for almost 2 decades full of deployments. He said this would not be a problem. The soldiers are there to do a job, it is not a democracy. The typical man will protect woman at their own expense. The typical soldier will do as he or she is told. It is not, nor ever was, an environment indicative of how people behave in their everyday lives. (His words, not mine)

Paragraph 5- "As a women, I am so tired of women demanding to have and do everything men have and do."
- Interesting that you believe me to be one of these "demanding women" because i wrote a response about one issue; women in the military.
- Actually, I'm very Christian conservative/traditionalist. I married young, and I am and always have been a stay-at-home mom. I raise my child, clean, garden, bake (and cook reluctantly because my husband is actually so much better at it!) I certainly don't have the desire to be in the military at all, much less in combat arms. But, it doesn't bother me that some other female might want to. I am sorry that women working in untraditional roles makes you, personally, feel so tired and upset.
**fyi- before anyone goes bonkers because we just have ONE child, it is not by choice. 4 lost second semester pregnancies later, we have one child.

Paragraph 6- "What's so awful about just being a women?"
- There's nothing awful about being a women. I think there might be something awful about "JUST" being a woman though!

Paragraph 7- "What do you think of men who insist that they are women trapped in male bodies and insisting that a surgeon mutilate them so that they can have and do everything woman have and do?"
- Ummm, well I was unaware that I was supposed to address this in my response about women in combat??
I think you bring it up to try to draw a parallel between woman combat vets and transgendered peoples; dubbing them "outliers" in society and therefore not natural.
- First, I suppose I would feel intense sorrow for a man who felt he was trapped in the wrong body. I can't imagine living day to day with that. Second, I would agree that surgically changing and mutilating ones own body would be Biblically wrong. OTOH, there are actual Biblical examples of woman in combat. Are these women "outliers" or " out-of-the-norm," sure. They're unusual, but that's all. Just unusual.

Paragraph 9+ "never mind that a human being is slaughtered. I've got to have my way. What if men began to demand the ability to be pregnant? What if they insisted on a surgery, that would provide them with a uterus, and drugs to make their body maintain a pregnancy? Would that be acceptable? Equal enough for you?"
- Doesn't the end of your post seem a bit like the "tantruming" you dislike so much, eh?"

I don't think we can examine the question of women in combat in a vacuum. It's not a "stand alone" question. It's related to what is happening in a larger context; in the context of American culture. Women in combat IS related to legalising abortion. It's related to transgender mutilation, to homosexual "marriage", to divorce, to who raises the children if both parents insist on having a career...

What seems obvious is that men and women sometimes get confused about who they are. A man demanding that a surgeon alter his body because he wants to be a woman is the same kind of thing as women insisting that they be able to become un-pregnant at any time by having access to legal abortion. Both of them are ignoring or outright rejecting what God has made them to be.

The question of women in combat is just one piece of the larger picture -- the question of what a man is and what a woman is; it's an ontological question, not a question of rights or power or a competition of who gets to do what.

Unfortunately, that is what it has been reduced to.

The writer of the essay is looking at men and women ontologically. When he says that a man will instinctively protect a woman in combat, he is pointing out that this is something men do instinctively; it's consistent with the nature of a man -- just as it is consistent for a woman to instinctively be nurturing.

That doesn't mean a woman cannot be protective or a man cannot be nurturing.

The question he's asking is whether it makes sense to base policy or practice on the exception rather than the rule; if it makes sense to treat women the same way we treat men or expect women to be and do what men are and do.

Maybe my tongue-in-cheek or even sardonic style doesn't help when it comes to communicating in this medium, and I'm sorry I've started this out in such a way that you seem to feel the need to defend yourself.

I figured your husband had read the essay.

I was disappointed that you both were dismissing the arguments the writer of the essay made. To my mind, they are reasonable if not downright compelling.

I didn't write anything believing YOU to be "one of these 'demanding women' " ; this isn't about you, or about me, either.

It is about whether a man is interchangeable with a woman and vice versa.

When I asked what's wrong with just being a woman, I used the word "just" not as a way to dismiss or reduce or minimize what a woman is.

What I should have asked is: What is wrong with simply being a woman?

What I meant by that was that it's ok with me as a woman that I don't get to do everything a man gets to do. I'm content with doing what I, as a woman, was designed to do, and like it or not, that is being a mother.

I realise that not all women can or will be biological mothers. However, it seems to me that, ontologically speaking, it is possible to be a mother even if you never bear a child. A mother is someone who gives life, who nurtures it wherever it is, who coaxes it into growth.

I suppose I'm really going to get myself in trouble now, because I'm going to say this: To me, a woman in combat is absolutely antithetical to what she is made to do and be -- a LIFE giver. NOT a life taker.

In saying that, I also have to assert that MEN are not designed to be life takers, either. War and being a warrior is NOT NATURAL for ANY human being because DEATH is not natural. And while that question is not irrelevant, I'm going to arrest my own digression and go back a step.

You wrote: "I think there might be something awful about 'JUST' being a woman..."

You used the word "just" in that sentence to mean ONLY.

There is no such thing, Saunca. There is no such thing as being ONLY a woman.

What is tragic about this new policy of making it possible for women to be in combat is that it is seen by so many as a question of equality; that prohibiting women from being in combat is somehow to say that they are less than men; inferior to men -- ONLY women.

Saying a woman can't be a priest isn't to say that she is somehow less than or inferior to a man. Not all men can be priests, nor can all men be soldiers. That doesn't make them somehow inferior to men who are priests or men who are soldiers.

The thing that bothers me most about women being in the military is the question of what happens when and if a female soldier becomes pregnant. What will happen to that child?

I think one of the more extraordinary things about posts on this site can be the entertaining discordance between the preface and the cut and pasted essay it is paired with. We had the solemn intonation "This is fairly easy to do when one holds to a Christocentric approach.", which, is a rather high bar to set for proceeding material. When the forthcoming material is a screed that touches on no Christian themes, or even more vaguely spiritual themes, it gets to be a bit amusing.

And when the preface which smugly assures such condescending ease in judgement and spiritual grounding in Christ promptly proceeds to an essay written by a rather infamous racist and white nationalist it's just an endearing train wreck of fail. When I saw the byline Jared Taylor it's a good thing it took long enough for the gears to click to finish swallowing my drink.

I think when you have material with such choice bits as:

It destroys what the Army calls “group cohesion” if a man has been jilted by the squad tart and then has to listen to her squealing all night in someone else’s foxhole.

I think it is safe to assume that the piece is not a dispassionate clinical assessment of a complicated subject, but rather an illumination that the author is every bit as misogynistic as he is racist.

I couldn't help but think of the Christocentric again when I hit this part:

Combat troops are young men who kill people for a living. In the all-volunteer Army they are there because they like killing people.

As we learned from the Slaughter on the Mount, enjoying killing people is part of the ontological reality of being a man. Oh, wait, my mistake, we don't call people who enjoy killing people men, we call them psychopaths. A category of neurodiversity that is not limited to the male gender.

Nate, my preface was based on my Christian convictions. It's easier to live in a fallen world when one is in tune with the teachings of Christ. He gave us excellent instructions and a Church which offers salvific medicine. I realize however that many are not in the Church. I assume that Jared Taylor is not as he's an evolutionist and Takimag is secularist for the most part. My point? That even materialists who understand biology and culture in a realistic fashion pretty much come to the same conclusion with Christian realists on a variety of topics. The one in question is the ontological differences between men and women. We Christians have a mystical anthropology derived from Paul's letter to the Ephesians (which itself is heavily influenced by traditional Jewish thought on these matters --cf Song of Solomon), while materialists have an evolutionary anthropology based on scientific observation.

That both come to the same conclusion was the point of my posting this essay.

As for war itself, it is part of our fallen nature. I don't believe that the Lord delights in it so don't put words in my mouth.

I remember a day when women "couldn't do the job" outside of teaching and secretarial work. Boy, were they wrong and so are you, George. War isn't just about brawn; it's about smarts. If men can't control their testosterone and take "crazy risks to protect women," then that's on them. Some of these so-called "men" are just fresh-faced boys whose mothers still do their laundry for them. Mature men are not slaves to their hormones; nor do they take "crazy risks." They know how to "bond" with women and do so in the workforce every day. - This is just an Obama diversion. Women who go into combat have to pass the same fitness tests that men do. They may be "eligible," but that doesn't mean they'll make it. As for men going to war to protect their wives, sisters, daughters, etc., that's just romantic nonsense. Most of these kids enlist because they have no other options.

Gail, for the record, the only problem I have with women in the workplace is who will take care of the children. In my lower-class neighborhood growing up, the fathers all worked, the mothers all stayed home, and the kids ran around all day long in summers riding bikes, playing cops-and-robbers, shooting hoops and generally taking it easy. None of us were fat, none of us were medicated, and none of us felt deprived because we didn't wear La Coste shirts. Having said that, I think women (especially empty-nesters) contribute mightily to the workplace and in positive ways. I've always felt that women should be doctors because they'd be more empathetic to women patients and that it would be easier for women patients to expose themselves medically to other women.

All that being said, the issues described by Mr Taylor in his essay about women in combat cannot be elided over easily. Yes, there's a lot of brainpower involved in modern warfare, avenues in which women probably excel but he wasn't writing about that. He was talking about the "tip of the spear," the GI, the Marine rifleman, the grunt. The bell curve for even highly-trained women soldiers and that of men rarely overlaps.

For me personally, the money quote in the entire essay was why was there a clamor for women to serve in combat but no comparative clamor for women to play for the NFL? Even ardent feminists would say "don't be ridiculous!" Does this mean we care more about the purity of the NFL than we do about the Armed Forces?

George,
Umm, there's no clamor because there's no restriction. Women are not banned from playing in the NFL. Who knows, somewhere out there might be a very unique woman who can physically compete in certain NFL positions. I wouldn't be surprised to see a female NFL kicker in my lifetime. Women already play/have played that position at the collegiate level.

There's no "restriction" because no woman in her right mind wants to get the crap knocked out of her. Even if some mutant female born someday could run the 100 yd dash in less than 5 sec and could bench press 250 lbs, she would still be an outlier. In other words, she'd be the exception that proves the rule.

As for collegiate kickers, that's probably the safest position in full-contact football. Curiously though, do they shower with the men? Just asking.

That's the thing, George -- these days, the *exceptions* (or outliers) drive our social policy. Most women have no interest in serving in combat units (as do many men). The requirements for being in a combat unit traditionally were a lot like the requirements for being an Orthodox priest -- all women and most men are not eligible. But in an effort to avoid potentially offending the occasional woman who could keep up with the most intense of military units, do we change the policy altogether?

An earlier poster wrote that women should be allowed in combat units if they :
"1. Meet EXACTLY the same PT requirements, training requirements, and psych evaluations so as not to place the unit/team at a physical disadvantage and therefore at increased risk
2. Maintain celibacy prior to and during a deployment, so as not to leave the unit/team a person short due to pregnancy and therefore at increased risk
3. Accept that some geographical assignments may not work well with a female soldier mission, leaving units/teams in non-negotiable situations and therefore at increased risk"

The first requirement alone would exclude more than 99% (if not 100%, if we are precisely talking about meeting exactly the same PT requirements) of women from combat roles anyway. So again, do we change the policy to accommodate the rare outlier? That's crazy.

The problem is that the politicians who make these decisions have no conception of what it is like to be part of a military unit. They are part of the post-Vietnam War, all-volunteer military era, when military service was looked down upon and few people volunteered for the military if they didn't come from military families or had some other better option. Less than 1% of Congress has children in the military (which is embarrassing to say the least, and a different issue altogether). It used to be that military service was a prerequisite for running for public office -- now, it's practically a liability.

The groups who would be pressuring the military to push this social agenda act similar as groups that push abortion rights -- they care little about the individual woman, they are simply out for a political goal. It's very utilitarian. Just like they don't care if a woman suffers with years of psychological trauma following an abortion that they encouraged her to pursue, they don't care if a woman becomes physically damaged as she tries to meet the same PT requirements as men (something that she was never meant to do in the first place), or if she is gang-raped by a Taliban terrorist in the mountains of Afghanistan. These groups care only about achieving a political end, and they happily use naive and guileless young women (helped by clueless or out-to-lunch parents) to do the dirty work.

Our American founding fathers's original point of the military being ultimately under civilian leadership is to avoid potential military takeovers of the government. But these days it seems that the point is more for civilian leaders to use the military more to make it "a giant experiment in egalitarian fantasy," as the author of the piece writes.

And what happened to our national discussion on the logical next step of this new policy of allowing women in front-line combat units: when will our 18-year-old women start being required to register with the Selective Service? I must have missed the national discussion on this one because I never heard it.

The reason that only 18-year-old boys are now required to register with the Selective Service is because in a time of national military emergency, our society has historically deemed it appropriate for only men to go to combat. I know that no one in their right mind wants a boy or young man to have to go to combat, but now, do we want our young daughters to have to register for the same thing, and possibly be drafted, in case of a national emergency? Have we as a society even discussed this? Do we even care?

Well said, Greg. (Full disclosure: I met Greg and provided Holy Confession and the Holy Mysteries of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the International Zone, or IZ, in Baghdad in August 2006 during one of my several visits as an Orthodox U.S. Army chaplain, while he was also deployed there as a U.S. Army medical doctor in the rank of major. In other words, the two of us have experienced war first-hand and agree, it would seem, about the reckless folly--and I would add immoral violations of privacy, decency, and chastity--that the inclusion of women in close-quarters combat units, Special Forces, and infantry, combat engineer, and Ranger battalions would entail.)

George,
Although I'm quite sure you're being crude & sarcastic purposefully, I will answer the question anyways. No, of course I don't think that the female football players are showering with the men.
Come now....football is not War, is it?

Ironic isn't it? Why not? Is it because professional football is more important than sending young men out to get killed? (And believe it or not, I was not trying to be rude and sarcastic, I really want to find out what peoples' first principles are.)

I forgot to mention, I thank your husband for his service to our country.

Have you stopped to think that maybe traditionalists and conservatives such as myself balk at the feminization and homosexualization of our society because of its deleterious effects on the traditions of the United States Armed Forces. (Full disclosure: I did not serve as I was turned down twice, once because I was too young [17] and another time because of health issues.)

Saunca, Good point. Of course there are men who enter the military because it's a tradition within their family and when you grow up in a military family, I think you are more prepared to take on the responsibility. I was speaking of the kids mentioned in this article who can't control their hormones and take "crazy risks" for women. - There is a fine line between protecting womanhood and objectifying women to the point where they become caricatures; in this case, "wiley women" who cause havoc in the ranks and end up pregnant. It is terrifying to read that women interfere with the "killing machines" that these men are to become. How do you turn these "machines" off when they come home? If they rape and behave poorly in war, what image are they projecting of our county? Removing women isn't the answer. It's the behavior that should be eradicated. I find this article offensive and alarming on so many levels.

And where was Adam during all this? Was he standing in front of Eve protecting her from the onslaught of the evil one or behind her eating the fruit? Not much has changed, my friend. Plenty of blame to go around.

Take it up with St. Paul not me. This is why for St. Paul women cannot hold a position of authority in the Church as they were the true sinner not Adam. Adam was led into the sin by Eve. maybe a hard teaching, but like I said take it up with St. paul and the New testament not me.

Also, St. John Chrysostom, the most beloved of Feminists of course, expounded on 1 Timothy 2:13-14 when he said this:

Saint John Chrysostom

"You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not, indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment. ... When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You have prepared the abominable cup, you have given the death dealing drink, and you are more criminal than are those who poison the body; you murder not the body but the soul. And it is not to enemies you do this, nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity, nor provoked by injury, but out of foolish vanity and pride."

St. John Chrysostom goes on to say:

Such, after all, are the stratagems of the enemy: when ever he lures someone to a great height through deceit, at that very point he casts them down into a deep abyss. The woman, you see, had dreams of equality with God and hastened to taste the fruit; she had evidently set her mind and her thinking on that goal, and she thought of nothing else than how to drink the cup prepared for her by the wicked demon. That is to say, listen to the account Scripture gives so as to learn that she was bent on this course after receiving that deadly poison through the serpent's advice. (129c) "The woman saw that the tree was good for eating, pleasing for the eyes to behold, and attractive to contemplate. She took some of its fruit and ate it." [ Gen 3:6 ] True it is that "evil converse corrupts good behavior." [ I Cor 15:33 ] Why was it, after all, that before that wicked demon's advice she entertained no such idea, had no eyes for the tree, nor noticed its attractiveness? Because she feared God's direction and the punishment likely to follow from tasting the fruit; now, how ever, when she was deceived by this evil creature into thinking that not only would they not come to any harm from this but would even be equal to God, then evidently hope of gaining the promised reward drove her to taste it. Not content to remain within her own proper limits, but considering the enemy and foe of her salvation to be more trustworthy than God's words, she learned shortly afterwards through her own experience the lethal effect of such advice and the disaster brought on them from tasting the fruit. The text says, remember, "She saw the tree was good for eating, pleasing for the eyes to behold and attractive to contemplate," and she reasoned with herself, probably from the devil's deceit which he
proposed to her through the serpent: If the tree is good for eating, can so delight the eyes and has some indefinable attractiveness about it, while tasting it provides us with the highest esteem, and we will have honor equal to the Creator, why should we not taste it?
Do you see how the devil led her captive, handicapped her reasoning, and caused her to set her thoughts on goals beyond her real capabilities, in order that she might be puffed up with empty hopes (130a) and lose her hold on the advantages already accorded her? "She took some of its fruit," the text says, "and ate it; she gave it to her husband also, and they both ate it. Their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked." [ Gen 3:6, Gen 3:7 ] O woman, what have you done? You have not only followed that deadly counsel literally and trampled on the law imposed on you by God, spurning his instruction and treating it with such displeasure as to be discontented with such great enjoyment, but you have also presumed to take fruit from the one tree which the Lord bade you not to lay hold of, you put faith in the words of the serpent, you regarded its advice worthy of greater heed than the instruction given you by the Creator, and have been ensnared in such awful deception as to be incapable of any claim to excuse. Surely you're not, after all, of the same nature as the one who offered you the advice?

St. John Chrysostom's full Commentary on Genesis can be found here: http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/commentaries/ChrGen.html#glossGen3:2 Gen3:3

So yes Gail both sinned, but as St. John Chrysostom says and as St. Paul clearly tells us in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 - When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me, whom does this world condemn? Whom do judges punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion?

Women in Combat? In the Military? I'll leave that up for Debate. Women in Spiritual Combat as Decons, Priest and Bishops - Nope! See above.

Again, take up 1 Timothy 2:13-14 with God, Jesus, The New Testament, St. Paul and St. John Chrysostom not me.

If you read what St. John Chrysostom says carefully he says "The woman, you see, had dreams of equality with God and hastened to taste the fruit. Equality with Men, Equality with God, always Equality. There is a great mystery here because the fair treatment of all Human Beings in interpersonal relationships, politically and under the law is one thing, but Equality, at least as understood by Scripture and looked down upon by Almighty God, is something completely different and evil.

Thank you Father Hans. It would seem that Radical feminism (Eden) and Homosexuality (Sodom and Gomorrah) have been around for a very long time. Yet, they are the sysmptoms of the disease. The disease itself is Human Pride saying I know better than God and that I am better than God. The only things that have changed for Humanity are our gadgets nothing else.

I have also often read the Story of the Garden of Eden with the Story of Jesus Christ's temptation in the desert. In One story Humanity fell to the temptations of the Devil, in the other Jesus Christ, by the Devil appealing to all his human desires, beat the Devil and started the process of Humanity's restoration. I am convinced that you cannot read one without the other. I am also convinced that Jesus Christ is the true Human Being that all of us must aspire to. However, I think on this I am preaching to the chior(sp?).

Fr. Hans I have a question: Why is Bishop Kallistos Ware a little wishy-washy when it comes to denying Female Ordinations? I thought, and maybe I am wrong, that Orthodoxy was very clear about this issue. Was I wrong? I would like to know your thoughts if possible.

Fr. Hans I have a question: Why is Bishop Kallistos Ware a little wishy-washy when it comes to denying Female Ordinations? I thought, and maybe I am wrong, that Orthodoxy was very clear about this issue. Was I wrong? I would like to know your thoughts if possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Father Hans will answer for himself, I'm sure, but I can say for a fact -- since I myself heard Metropolitan Kallistos Ware say this -- that he said only that we orthodox haven't yet formulated a cogent theological response to the question of ordaining women to the priesthood.

This is true, since the question has come up only recently even among protestant and catholic Christians. We just always assumed that this wasn't an issue, and hence haven't theologized it.

But if Peter Papoutsis or anyone else wants to know why MetKW says anything at all, it would be best to ask HIM.

His official position is that there is no theological explanation for a male priesthood and on this point he is correct. He does not endorse a female priesthood however because he does not believe it is proper to change practices on these grounds alone. He makes no argument against it.

The feminists argue that because no formal theological explanation exists the barriers are merely cultural detritus we can throw out (a vestige of patriarchalism and all that), although Orthodox sympathizers know female deacons and priests are a way off so the pressure now is on allowing altar girls.

I have a theory on why the priesthood must be male (and by extension the entire altar) but I get seriously hammered whenever I proffer it. I am convinced though that the hammering comes because the premise is true. (These days the strength of criticism against an idea can function as an indicator of its veracity.)

Briefly, a male priesthood (and deacons) preserves the ontological distinction between the Creator and created in our worship and thus Christian culture.

One thing I ask the feminists (some Orthodox women have embraced feminist ideas regarding the male priesthood) when they invoke the silence of the tradition: What female Saint has ever said a male priesthood hindered her growth in Christ? Silence works both ways.

There is a very clear theological reason why only males can be ordained. The Church has never ordained women. If Christ had wanted women to be ordained, He would have chosen a woman Apostle. If it were the will of God that the Church ordain women, the Church would have been ordaining women since Pentecost. Could the Church be wrong for almost 2,000 years. Besides, the priest is an icon of Christ who was male. Finally, the harm that has been done by women's ordination in the Episcopal Church and every Protestant denomination that has yielded to pressure from the feminists is all the reason we need why not to ordain women. Every major Protestant denomination that has begun to ordain women has also been victim to heretical feminist theology, so called inclusive language for God, and eventually the acceptance of blessing same sex unions. Fewer men attend services led by women and fewer men are going into the ministry of denominations that ordain women. It will not be long before the majority of clergy of American mainline Protestant groups are women. Our Lord said that we would know them by their fruits, the fruit of women's ordination is rotten. Do we really want an Archbishop or Metropolitan like Ms. Sheri or whatever her name is who is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church? St. Vladimir's seminary Press published a whole book on essays on why women cannot be ordained. The late great Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote, "Those churches that are ordaining women are not making women priests, they are abolishing the priesthood."

Fr James, Peter's question regarding Kallistos Ware's opinion is well-placed. After all the chance of seeing him one-on-one is neglibible. And anyway, perhaps one of our readers is aware of an essay of Ware's in which he explains his position.

By "no theological explanation," he means that the reservation of the priesthood to men has not been sufficiently grounded in a specifically Christian understanding of God. We've said only that Christ didn't make women apostles and that priests must look like Christ, but we haven't grounded these arguments in an understanding of God that doesn't attribute more of the image of God to men than to women or that can't be swept away by saying that the all-male priesthood was only on account of the culture of the day and is therefore no longer relevant now. That's the problem.

That said, I would argue that we have been given a very sound and very fundamental theological explanation, hinted at in 1 Cor. 11:3:

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Here there is an order and a relationship between the man and the woman analogous to the order and relationship between the Father and the Son, and that order and relationship makes one the archic head and the other the eucharistic body, which is a much more patristic argument against women priests than this notion of iconic resemblance. Whenever the issue arose among the Fathers, they did appeal to tradition saying that Christ didn't call women to be apostles, but they never argued that the priest must look like Christ; they said instead that women cannot be priests because priests preside and women can't preside over men, quoting all the relevant passages from the Old and New Testament.

This is what I have tried to explain in "The Problem with Hierarchy" in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, which will be explained more fully in a book I am now writing.

Some intriguing observations, Fr. Hans, re the Fatherhood of God as the ultimate target of radical feminism and radical homosexualism alike, and, Peter, re biblical events as ancient precursors and paradigms of "Radical feminism (Eden) and Homosexuality (Sodom and Gomorrah)." I also appreciate Peter's invocation the classic linkage between the Lord's temptation in the wilderness and the temptations in Eden. That is how we may develop sound, comprehensive presentations of our Orthodox moral tradition--direct, profound but easily understandable, appeals to the Holy Scriptures, Church fathers, proclamations of the Ecumenical Councils, canon law, lives of the saints, liturgical and hymnographic texts, and iconography--to our non-Orthodox neighbors, as well as those fellow Orthodox who may feel overwhelmed by the dominant and emergent trends in our secular culture.

Dn Brian Patrick Mitchell. Thank you for your insight as well as to Archpriest Alexander. Could 1 Timothy 2:13-14 also be used as a proof test in this along with 1 Cor. 11:3?

Further, Fr. Hans, Dn. Patrick Mitchell and Archpriest Alexander (cool name by the way, my son is also named Alexander), what other arguments or articles, books are there from an Orthodox point of view that expands upon this? I would love to read more about this from an Orthodox Patristic point of view.

This has an immense connection with the current topic of Women in Combat as it touches upon the main thesis of Radical Feminism "Pure Equality", which I believe is directly condemned by Scripture, Tradition and the Patristic writings of the Orthodox Church. Any further help in this area would be greatly aprriciated.

btw I just ordered your book Dn Patrick Mitchell and I am awaiting its arrival. Will read it and let you know my thoughts.

Thanks, Peter. I don't know of any recent books or articles (besides my own) that make much sense on the issue. Most just don't dare to be as faithful to scripture and tradition as making sense requires us to be. They don't make the obvious patristic arguments for fear of women and instead rely on very weak, very modern alternatives, like iconic resemblance and gender balance (the idea that women have their own patron Person in the Holy Spirit, but priests must be male because Christ is the High Priest).

There's also the problem that we're dealing with two things the Fathers themselves did not clearly distinguish: the natural relationship between the man and woman and their economical relationship in the fallen world. There's an order to both that is not absolutely egalitarian or, a better word, anarchical. The former is the goal, the telos, the latter is the way to the goal. The Fathers did not clearly distinguish these because they didn't need to, and when they did bother to speculate needlessly, they sometimes resorted to pagan Neoplatonic thinking denying all relevance of sex or gender beyond procreation. I'll have more to say about that in the book based on the article in SVTQ. It's a touchy subject among the Orthodox, because it means saying that two or three men much revered by many Orthodox were actually wrong about something.

They don’t make the obvious patristic arguments for fear of women and instead rely on very weak, very modern alternatives, like iconic resemblance and gender balance (the idea that women have their own patron Person in the Holy Spirit, but priests must be male because Christ is the High Priest).

Dn Mitchell

I must tell you that you are correct on this and that I was specifically taught this by both a Greek Orthodox priest and Serbian Orthodox priest at Loyola University Chicago back in my college days in my class Orthodox Christian Tradition.

If you look at my earlier posts I advocated a form of this in regards to catagorizing the Holy Spirit in feminine terms. Due to your posts and leap frogging off of them to the writing of Fr. Stanley Harakes, I came to understand the error of by thinking in this regard, and have changed my thinking a complete 180 degrees. I must tell you I do not usually do this but I truly want to learn not only the correct matters of our faith, but the true depth of it.

So thank you in this regards, and in other regards, and hope you publish more books on others areas of Orthodoxy, Patristics and Society in general. Thank you again.

And what did he say of Adam? "Great was the man's indifference, too: even though like him she was human and his wife as well, still he should have kept God's law intact and given it preference before her improper greed, and not joined her as a partner in her fall nor deprived himself of such benefits on account of a brief pleasure, offending his benefactor who had also shown him so much loving kindness and had regaled him with a life so free of pain and relieved of all distress. After all, were you not free to enjoy everything else in the garden in generous measure? Why did you not choose for yourself to keep the command that was so easy? Instead, you probably listened to the promise contained in the deadly advice coming from your wife, and buoyed up in your turn with hope you readily shared in the food. As a result you incur the penalty from each other, and experience teaches you not to place greater importance on the wicked demon's advice than on God."

Adam was "indifferent" and "readily shared in the food," and as a result, "incurred the penalty . . ." - My point wasn't that Eve was innocent, but that Adam was complicit.

I have no idea how anything I said could be construed as supporting "Women in Spiritual Combat as Decons, Priest and Bishops!"

But Eve was the original sinner not Adam she gave the poison that Adam took. Adam was sinful as well but there is a difference as to the level of complicity and according to the scriptures Eve's complicity was more than Adam's

George, let me know that Church Father's name as would love to read his commentary which seems to be at odds with St. Paul and St. John Chryssostom and 1 Timothy 2:13-14.

Part of the 'curse' given at the time was the subjection of the male to the female. I've always felt this was a penance for the good of both. The man has to realize that God is his head and we are responsible for more than our own selves. God is not to be blamed ("...this woman you gave me..." ) when we fail.

When two work together, there has to be some sort of hierarchy. In Christianity, it is as Deacon Brian states: male over woman as Christ over the Church. The unavoidable consequence of that is that we men are called to give our lives entirely for our mates even unto death. That entails no domination any more than Jesus Christ dominates us. It is our Cross, frankly (a joyous one when we do it). Among other things it means seeing the beauty, the honor and the wonder of our mates and doing whatever we can to nuture, protect and increase those things. What we give is given back to us as we offer up our prayers and devotions to God.

The analogy that Fr Hans and Deacon Brian are drawing is a very apt one. I am thankful that they are developing those ideas further. They need to be articulated in this time as much as Christology needed to be articulated during the time of the Fathers.

On Lamech's repentance, St. John Chrysostom commented: “By confessing his sins to his wives, Lamech brings to light what Cain tried to hide from God and by comparing what he has done to the crimes committed by Cain he limited the punishment coming to Him.” (St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Genesis, Vol. 74, p.39. The Catholic University Press of America, 1999.)

Chrysostom’s interpretation is consistent with the overall picture of God’s love and mercy, yet his view is not referenced in any Bibles. (The Orthodox Study Bible misses the mark in stating that "Cain did not believe in the grace of God"; see note on p. 9) Most Bible footnotes ignore that Cain received mercy, and incorrectly assert that God wiped out Cain’s line in the flood, a view which is not supported by the information in Genesis. Analysis of the Genesis 4 and 5 King Lists supports Chrysostom's interpretation, as we will see by tracing the number seven from Cain to his descendant Lamech the Younger.

The number 7 represents new life, mercy and renewal. Cain murdered and tried to hide his crime from God. Cain deserved death, yet God showed him mercy by sparing his life. Cain was exiled from his people and God showed him grace by placing a mark on him as a protecting sign. Reflecting on this great mercy shown to his ancestor, Lamech challenges God to show him greater mercy. If grace was shown to Cain (7), then the Elder Lamech, by confessing his sin, claims a double measure of grace (77). The Younger Lamech is assigned a triple measure of grace because he is said to have lived 777 years. Lamech the Younger is the son of Methuselah, the priest and the father of Noah the righteous.

St. John Chrysostom recognized that the story of the two Lamechs is about God’s mercy shown to sinners.

Thumbs Down on quoting Scripture accurately and later giving proper commentary from no less than St. John Chrysostom? What did Fr. Hopko say would happen towards the last days? Apostasy, Apostasy, Apostasy. Fr. Hopko was right.

Btw I'm the father of a beautiful daughter who also wants her to have a full and enriching life, but I am also attempting with God's Grace to raise her as a good Greek Orthodox Christian. She will make her own choices in life, but she will never have the excuse that I never told her the difference between God's way and that of the world's.

No thumbs down from me,sir! On the contrary...The problem is,I'm afraid,many of our Orthodox do think the Genesis account of creation is a myth.I highly recommend,"Genesis,Creation,and Early Man" by Fr.Seraphim Rose.

Fr. Andrei, I too greatly appreciate "Genesis, Creation and Early Man" It is a book that forces one to think and pray. Even if one is wary of Fr. Seraphim it is worth the read. It addresses the materialistic, deterministic mindset of modern scientism quite well I think. As with many of his works, it is a work in progress and was never brought to a real intellectual conclusion, IMO.

Of course, for some the very mention of Fr. Seraphim's name favorably is to brand you as a fanatic nutcase.

I'll say one thing: I doubt that I'd be Orthodox if it were not for him.

Absolutely Gail. Removing women "outliers" (as the some on the site have given a negative vibe to) from any job position because men cannot control themselves?? Ridiculous, but as you said, also scary.

Military rape is not about carnal lust, it is about power, control, and domination. It is am abuse of power. It is one thing about the military mindset that needs to needs addressed as The Forerunner did. Again you are using abusive situations to criticise the norm rsther than the other way round.

"Again, you are using abusive situations to criticize the norm rather than the other way round."
Michael,
So we SHOULDN'T criticize military rape or the men who do this because it's the norm? We SHOULD criticize the female who wants to sign up, fight, and serve her country because she's unusual in her job field. Really?
Rape vs. Unusual job
Commonsense tells me which one is more sinful.

Rape against men should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. When Washington was general-in-chief of the Continental Army, he presided over several hangings, one of them a sargent who molested a 13 year old drummer boy.

George mentions that Washington “presided over several hangings, one of them a sargent who molested a 13 year old drummer boy.”

Good for Washington! We could do with a bit more of that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think so.

In England, right well into the eighteenth century, minor infractions were routinely punished by death -- a situation remedied by what we now recognize as condignity: punishment must not be disproportionately harsh vis-a-vis the crime, a concept enshrined in the american constitution as our protection from 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

But Washington was a man of his time and place, and much of what went on then and there was conditioned by american colonists trying to move away from such british things as annoyed them at the same time as they continued to follow british patterns in many other ways. That social revolution isn't over yet.

The biblical 'law of retaliation' -- 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' -- was intended to LIMIT punishment to some sort of equitable balance with the crime. So, if someone lost an eye in a fight, he might then demand one eye from his attacker, but not that he be blinded.

Lately, it's been suggested that male sexual offenders be deprived of their sex organs, or at least undergo 'chemical castration', the latter being reversible -- which might not be a good idea, given the high rate of recidivism in sexual offenders. Other therapies and imprisonment seem not to be effective, and we -- as a culture -- haven't thought well through the implications of releasing even registered sex offenders into society. The whole system is fraught with dangerous contradictions and catch-22s.

In any event, as disgusting as it is even to imagine an adult man's sexual abuse of a boy, it's even more disgusting to think of killing sinners (crimes are usually sins) instead of neutralizing their capacity to do more evil and offering opportunities for repentance and salvation.

Besides, who would perform the executions? Father Patrick?! Does he or any priest feel so strongly about this as to resign his priesthood for it and accept permanent excommunication? That would be the lot of a professional executioner, since each killing would put him out of the Church for a minimum of ten years, per the canons. And even paying an atheist to do the dirty work doesn't keep us who pay him from having blood on our hands.

Father James asks, "Besides, who would perform the executions? Father Patrick?! Does he or any priest feel so strongly about this as to resign his priesthood for it and accept permanent excommunication?"

My comment, Father James, comes under the heading of a "rhetorical flourish."

Father James asks, “Besides, who would perform the executions? Father Patrick?! Does he or any priest feel so strongly about this as to resign his priesthood for it and accept permanent excommunication?”

My comment, Father James, comes under the heading of a “rhetorical flourish.”

In fact, I am opposed to the use of capital punishment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm relieved to know that Father Patrick opposes capital punishment. But if that's the case, I suggest that he be more circumspect before he expresses himself, lest he be all too easily misunderstood -- an interpretation which his previous post required.

Such a 'rhetorical flourish' is guaranteed to do more harm than good, since what we write on the Internet is out there forever, and is likely to be quoted by people whose philosophy is sometimes completely contrary to ours.

Saunca, that is absurd and offensive and beyond ridiculous and shows the poverty of your own thoughts and the bias you have against men to interpret anything a fellow Orthodox in such a way. Have you no shame?

Yes and they are all about domination, humiliation and power. The difference being that rape by soldiers has often been a tactic of warfare. However, Carl we were talking about the rapes in the military in case you didn't catch that.

I would also add, it is up to the command structure to train the soldiers in such a way that such abuse is limited and punished when it does occur. That is the proper hierachical response: older men socializing younger men. It is increasingly missing in our culture because maleness in and of itself is looked upon as wrong. Punishment is looked upon as something wrong. Even virtue, espeically in women, is looked upon as something wrong.

The neo-Platonic view that men and women only find the fullness of their being in one another is just as bad.

It is the nihilist vision, the transvaluation of all values of which Nietzche spoke and the degradation of the fundamental humaness in particular forms of male and female. Men are castrated and women are both masculinized and sultified.

It is the Procrustean Bed of eqalitarianism.

There is a natural hierachy that is built into creation. Hierachy does not mean rigidity nor oppression nor domination. It is, in fact, the way to freedom if the Head is always acknowledged. Genuine hierachy allows for the exception to be recognized.

Was your father able to control his hormones? I suspect he was so this article is not about men like him. It's about the male population in the military who view women as a disruptive (sexual) distraction; not as equals or as partners. Men who view women as tempters are NOT lovers of women.

Gail,
Currently our POTUS sits in committee and breaks out flash cards with names of people - some alleged terrorists, some not - and they pick which ones he could single handedly, with a push of a drone button, obliterate along with everyone else within a two mile radius. We used to put these sorts of thugs in front of judges even if for a swift and mocked-up court proceeding in order to follow our rule of law and the kernel of faith in something Greater, a Greater Order. Now, we have a 'new world order' and Mr. POTUS declares he has the right to do this to American Citizens. Do you see any difference between this tactic and that of Hamas? I don't really.

It's no wonder that this President would push to affirm the social and cultural norms that he's pushing. That, on the other hand, makes total sense. A coward with a drone button kills innocents, inside and outside the womb, and has women go on the front lines for him. All the while, the zombies he has doing the foot work for him in the communities get free cell phones and the perception that they are more free and progressing in society.

I hate to break it to you but this type of disrespect for the rule of law precedent was well established under the previous president (in front of judges? really? I guess all those people sent to GITMO were put in front of judges, right??? Or what about rendition???).

I don't much care for Obama's social stances either but the blame for opening Pandora's Box falls squarely on President Bush and the Republican Party. Pity people can't remember what happened yesterday, much less 10 years ago.

Dan, even though GWB proved to be a disappointment to me, the detainees at Gitmo were not covered under the Geneva Conventions since they were terrorists fighting on behalf of no state. The protocols governing POW's apply only to regular soldiers and sailors, not irregulars. As such, they can legally be tortured, shot on sight or detained indefinitely.

Dan, there are folks at Gitmo who would be sent home except their 'home' countries don't want them. These are folks who are out to kill, maim and destroy anyone they don't like and quite willing to take children with them, especially female children.

Would it be less barbaric to just shoot them on sight when found in combat situations or would you have them read their 'rights' as some want? As George pointed out, they have no legal rights anywhere that I know of.

Should our soldiers use non-lethal weapons? What is your solution? Just saying it's barbaric does not mean anything. The world without Christ is naturally and completely barbaric. How would you apply a Christian paradigm to the problem going forward with the actual conditions at hand? Just saying we shouldn't be there in the first place is not a solution.

What would you have our soldiers do?

It would be possible to mount a legitimate response to me questions that are a genuine critique, but I don't expect any such, just the usual impotent hand wringing and ideological cant.

Well George and Michael, reading their rights is what we're based upon and would be a start to restore any fragment left of American Principle that our long lost and long needed GI Generation fought for.

You two would have us believe we're leading a "just war" and yet would not follow the principles of what we fight for others outside the US? That would make us, at least, hypocritical wouldn't it? In reality this has nothing to do with our soldiers. They swear to uphold the Constitution (our leaders demolish the Constitution. And that's BOTH parties.) and believe they are doing so because they choose to be obedient - none of this is their fault so let's stop using them as a scapegoat for immoral foreign policy. And that's what it is - it has been since right after WW 2.

Who says they're terrorists? Were they tried somewhere? The US was once based upon Rule of Law and a Judicial System. We expounded these principles - not via force, rather example to the world. Today we use force to teach them "rules" but show them the opposite example. I think this is the point. Habeas Corpus was suspended with the Patriot Act. This is high treason and it wasn't an accident. And much like Michael uses the troops to guilt those who stand up for the Constitution as someone "unpatriotic" so did those who touted the patriotic act against the few who defended the Constitution then. The "Patriot" Act my left foot!

We don't detain people, let alone torture them and laugh in the media, let alone make up excuses that since there is no rule of law in the Middle East that it is ok to suspend ours while detaining others who had association with someone's cousin who shaved the head of a terrorist, or someone who spoke out in rage or anger against the US. If speaking out against the US was reason enough to detain an individual without right to a hearing - then half of us would be right there with them. And we will tomorrow lest we forget that every single time in US history when we've detracted our Constitution for some abstract "common good" it's come back to bite everyone else in some other specific way....

Do we believe that it is only immoral when Democrats take away liberty and grow government domestically and not when the GOP has done internationally over and over again with nation building policies that actually grow Islamist? Tomorrow - Gitmo is going to be for us Christians. I just hope we're, at least, allotted a 'banana court' instead of being label terrorists on an internet forum somewhere.

Well, people who blow up civilians just for the sake of terror are by definition terrorists. It's asymmetrical warfare on their part, seeing as how they can't raise an army and fight according to the rules of conventional warfare.

That is a great tragedy of war: we tend to become like the people we fight and loose some of our freedom each time we do.

There are no just wars but there are times when force must be used.

If President Johnson had responded by killing Yasar Arafat and his gang back in the 60's there would be far fewer problems. If we'd get away from the criminal and arrogant Wilsonianism we'd be better off.

But government is always out to extend its power rather than use its power appropriately.

My apologies Michael. My intent was not to blacken your beliefs or character. As Orthodox Christians, I would just like us to attempt to be consistent when speaking about morality and contemporary issues. I agree that not all issues are equivalent.

Perhaps the Constitution is suspended in a time of war. But this is when the process up to the war has followed the Constitution. That is: When it is declared by Congress because it was a last resort due to reasons spelled out by the very document. There is debate involved, not executive order. And then only with a known end point. So what we have here is part of us complaining when executive order is issued domestically, but are quiet when the same miscarriage of power is used internationally. This is inconsistent thinking and it should not be.

We have to be honest. Since WW2 actually war has not happened other than 9/11- we've committed aggression by the very definitions and principles set by our own founders, by the just war principles, and by our own Constitution. Admitting that we have been an aggressor even with "pure intentions" is important for healing and it doesn't make one less patriotic. In fact, we are called love our country but be sober and critical when we need to be. Also, it is important that we admit by the very "virtue" of the anti-process we have used to be this aggressor, we are no longer a Republic by definition. We are no longer a nation of rule of law. And this is dangerous. I think I read yesterday that Drones will now be flying over domestic territory. Remember what I said about the patriot act and roosting chickens, and destroy liberty for others means that we lose it as well?

To be more clear, I should say our political machine has committed this aggression, while our young men and women still function under the ideals of the Constitution. This is why they are not to blame, or rarely to blame. This is why they need to have such terms placed upon them as "peace keepers" "nation builders" etc etc. I don't blame them. I too would need to have such a conjured belief in order to keep sanity. But what happens when these young men come home in the next year or two after these multi-deportations. I don't think we've had soldiers under such circumstance...

This woman was trained by Hamas. She is a terrorist. Do you see a similarity between this woman and the women who serve in our armed forces? I certainly don’t.

Gail,
I have thought about your comment now for several days, and it disturbs me. I do see a similarity and I ask, in all seriousness, what difference do you see between women being trained to be killers by, say, family members, or by governments (or quasi-goverments)? Calling someone a terrorist is totally dependent on YOUR prospective of the action. After all, Met. Philip told us in San Diego that there "are no Palestinian Terrorists," "they are Freedom Fighters." ( I have no idea if he has changed his position on this, but it sure shocked me at the time. ) It all depends on your point of view.
The issue is training someone, male or female, to be a killer. If women in our armed forces are trained to be bookkeepers, they are still contributing to the effort. Where do we draw the line? Rationalizations can be made for about anything, as is obvious from this blog. Think about it, Gail. What we may call a "terrorist" may be someone else's defender of the "faith," or the country, monarchy, etc.
Women sent to combat are sent to be killers, unless I am very much confused about today's military.
p

Pelagiaeast,
The way I understand your post is you are equating our soldiers to terrorists. Terrorists go after innocent people...intentionally with no regard for human life. They scare and seek what will get them the greatest publicity. Our soldiers are trained to prevent such acts; defend the nation and the 1st amendment which allows one the freedom to imply our soldiers are killers or terrorists which IMHO is an abuse of this right.
Anna

P, I, too, am trouble by these things, because there are no straightforward answers. I guess, for me, it comes down to motive. This woman is out for vengence. Her smile chills me to the bone. She "likes" doing what she's doing. It is my hope that most of our men and women who serve in the armed forces are NOT seeking venegance and DON'T like having to kill.

So . . . are you saying, just throw up our hands and let whoever wants to, the Chinese, Russians, al-Quaeda, et. al. to come in and invade our country because OUR soldiers should NOT be killers? Not sure if you'll like living under sharia, but, whatever.

Nicholas,
I can imagine myself, an Orthodox Christan woman, mother and grandmother, doing this, but I know that if I gave in to the temptation ---- from the enemy ----- it would mean I would have gravely risked my eternal soul. So a part of me admires her for being so strong and brave. I, too, am strong and brave, but another part of me grieves greatly for her because of what it has done to her soul.

I have often pondered what I would do if one of my loved ones was attacked. Would I fight back with lethal force? Should I own a gun? How could I live with myself afterward if I survived my action? How would I be able to ask for forgiveness and mercy, since I would have known full well what I was doing? I would have chosen to so utterly violate all that Christ has taught us. Would I be loving my spouse, children, grandchildren MORE than I love Christ?

If I understand it correctly, loving Christ means I lay down my passions and die to self, even to the seemingly appropriate desire to kill to protect those I love. Would I stand in the place of that bus driver to protect my loved ones, or even ones I hardly knew? You bet. He is a beautiful icon for me. Something about laying down one's life for a friend.....

Just some immediate thoughts in response to the link. Now if it was a bear or wolf, it would be a different story.

And of course there’s always The Iliad and The Odyssey, two fo the foundational texts of Western Civilization, both of which are paeans to romantic love between the sexes Penelope waiting for her Odyessius. Among Greeks ancient pagans and Christians yes Homer is king.

I find those who complain most about conjecture, to be masters in it ...

Sent by whom Saunca? I wonder where I said "punished by God." Never the less, there are consequences in life to the choices we make and the disorder we bring. Just like there are consequences to the fall. We supposedly are to teach our children this - I wonder why we have to teach adults?

Lacking accountability. Yes. This is definitely a trait that will plague us with the destruction of the male role in society. And it starts with those who blast George for attempting to restore this in himself and his community, and beyond.

These are the front lines. The Orthodoxy Church needs a spiritual "Easy Company" to combat the enemies of the Truth.

She did that Reputation. Out of all the Byzantine Generals Belsarius was IMHO the most affective, and I felt sorry for him the most. I don't know why? I don't think it was just because of his wife. I don't know I just did.

In the Iliad, Aeneas is a minor character, where he is twice saved from death by the gods as if for an as-yet unknown destiny. He is the leader of the Trojans' Dardanian allies, as well as a third cousin and principal lieutenant of Hector, son of the Trojan king Priam. Aeneas' mother Aphrodite frequently comes to his aid on the battlefield; he is a favorite of Apollo. Aphrodite and Apollo rescue Aeneas from combat with Diomedes of Argos, who nearly kills him, and carry him away to Pergamos for healing. Even Poseidon, who normally favors the Greeks, comes to Aeneas' rescue after he falls under the assault of Achilles, noting that Aeneas, though from a junior branch of the royal family, is destined to become king of the Trojan people. He kills 28 people in the Trojan War, and his career during that war is retold by Roman historian Gaius Julius Hyginus (c. 64 BCE – CE 17) in his Fabulae.[1]

The history of Aeneas is continued by Roman authors, building on different myths and histories. During Virgil's time Aeneas was well-known and various versions of his adventures were circulating in Rome, including Roman Antiquities by Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus (relying on Marcus Terentius Varro, Ab Urbe Condita by Livy (probably dependent on Quintus Fabius Pictor, fl. 200 BCE), and Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus (through an epitome by Justin). Likewise important in Virgil's day was the account of Rome's founding in Cato the Elder's Origines.[2] Aeneas is a guy from Asia minor and is the ancestor of the Romans is why is it hard for historians later on to not idenify the Rum as Roman. Romans had eastern inflluence from the beginning with traces of the tale of Aeneas. The Estruscians who many thought came from Asia Minor were a big early influence.

Police have launched a massive manhunt for an ex-cop who promised in a Facebook post to "bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty." Christopher Jordan Dorner, 33, is suspected of killing a couple in a parking lot this weekend, police announced yesterday. This morning he allegedly shot three cops, one fatally, in a pair of shootouts. In one, officers were chasing Dorner when he got out of his car and fired a rifle-like weapon at them, KTLA reports. In the other, he allegedly attacked two officers on routine patrol.

On Sunday, Dorner allegedly killed Cal State Fullerton assistant basketball coach Monica Quan and her fiancé. Quan was the daughter of Randy Quan, who represented Dorner in a 2009 disciplinary review that ended in Dorner's dismissal, the LA Times explains. In a long Facebook post, Dorner accused Quan of representing him poorly. "I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I'm terminating yours," he said. He described his war on the department as "a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name." In their hunt for Dorner, LA police have shot two people by mistake.

It's shameful that our country has reached the point where we now ask our mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters to fight our battles. It's a testament to the double-minded, psychologically debased nature of our culture that so many seem to welcome this development. I for one think there are more nefarious motives at work here. For at least a decade, the Powers that Be have been reconfiguring the female archetype. Now, there are cop shows and movies featuring women lead detectives who toss men around like they were made of straw. Talk shows and local news programming feature feminized metrosexual men discussing cooking, child rearing, and fashion. This is by design. The Luciferian utopians have always sought to redefine marriage and the family. Unfortunately, the elite foundations like the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations have happily funded feminism and eugenics. Planned Parenthood -- a eugenics operation spawned by eugenicists Margaret Sanger -- furthers ethnic cleansing behind the mantle of a liberal elite ideology countless women have swallowed while in college or the work place. This is nothing but a self-extermination meme they've incorporated into their self-identity. First, the modern American woman entered the 60s workplace, part of a new vanguard of liberated secretaries and the occasional professional. The elites were only too happy since this meant more tax revenue while placing pressure on families: now, children would spend more time subject to the socialization protocol of government institutions that seek conformity and social/mental control. Then, in the hedonistic 70s, the pill became commonplace and women were told their authenticity and true liberation required sexual liberation. Abortion was legalized and we were off to the races. In the 80s, colleges and universities were filled with feminists and women studies departments to further the double-mind bind of American women: they could have it all -- a job, sex, avoid marriage, and be like men if only they would relinquish their quaint adherence to the very virtues that have empowered women in the past: modesty, child-rearing, and religious faith. Divorce and abortion continued to rise and sexually transmitted diseases exploded in the 90s. Now, women are being told they can fight in combat. At each stage along the way, the Powers that Be have held out the promise of a New Age if only women would reject the feminine. In our debased, psychological degraded culture, women are now told men, marriage, and children are at best and option and at worst an impediment to self-actualization. This is nothing short of Satanic.

Patrick says, "It’s shameful that our country has reached the point where we now ask our mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters to fight our battles. It’s a testament to the double-minded, psychologically debased nature of our culture that so many seem to welcome this development."

Well, we imported a lot of poor people from Latin America that couldn't afford stay at home moms less than the native born population. In Hispanc barrios in the US a lot of kids are left to their own devices so their parents can afford the exoribant rents of Los Angeles.

May 28, 2012 — Hereditary inequality began over 7,000 years ago in the early Neolithic era, with new evidence showing that farmers buried with tools had access to better land than those buried without.

The research, carried out by archaeologists from the Universities of Bristol, Cardiff and Oxford, is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), May 28.

By studying more than 300 human skeletons from sites across central Europe, Professor Alex Bentley and an international team of colleagues funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council uncovered evidence of differential land access among the first Neolithic farmers -- the earliest such evidence yet found.

Strontium isotope analysis of the skeletons, which provides indications of place of origin, indicated that men buried with distinctive Neolithic stone adzes (tools used for smoothing or carving wood) had less variable isotope signatures than men buried without adzes. This suggests those buried with adzes had access to closer -- and probably better -- land than those buried without.

Professor Bentley, Professor of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Bristol, said: "The men buried with adzes appear to have lived on food grown in areas of loess, the fertile and productive soil favoured by early farmers. This indicates they had consistent access to preferred farming areas."

The strontium isotope analysis also revealed that early Neolithic women were more likely than men to have originated from areas outside those where their bodies were found. This is a strong indication of patrilocality, a male-centred kinship system where females move to reside in the location of the males when they marry.

This new evidence from the skeletons is consistent with other archaeological, genetic, anthropological and even linguistic evidence for patrilocality in Neolithic Europe. The results have implications for genetic modelling of how human populations expanded in the Neolithic, for which sex-biased mobility patterns and status differences are increasing seen as crucial.

Professor Bentley said: "Our results, along with archaeobotanical studies that indicate the earliest farmers of Neolithic Germany had a system of land tenure, suggest that the origins of differential access to land can be traced back to an early part of the Neolithic era, rather than only to later prehistory when inequality and intergenerational wealth transfers are more clearly evidenced in burials and material culture.

"It seems the Neolithic era introduced heritable property (land and livestock) into Europe and that wealth inequality got underway when this happened. After that, of course, there was no looking back: through the Bronze Age, Iron Age and Industrial era wealth inequality increased but the 'seeds' of inequality were sown way back in the Neolithic."

Proof that no anicent society not communistic as Marx and Engel wrote in the 19th century. Marx and Engel also thought that women cold also do thinks that men could do such as fighting and so worh but in the communist utopia where is no war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?

Another thing this confirms what the Bible taught about early humans. The bible mentions about Eve being under her husband and modern archaeology of Neolithic socieites shows this is true on the above information on Prehistoric Germany. The Bible mentions about Cain getting a wife and a city founded by Cain and the archaeology of the German site shows married or partnerships between men and women and the women are from outside the tribal group. The Bible in Gensis seems to described a society of private property ownership and inequality since Cain and Abel brought their offerings to the Lord seperate and Noah built his large boat for himself and his family and others were not interested. Also, the mention of Giants and Mighty men refers to certain men that had authority or probably wealth over other men. The Bible in the early chapters is about Neolithic people except some metal work which might have developed in the late Stone age.

Father james, confesses, "I’m relieved to know that Father Patrick opposes capital punishment."

After my "rhetorical flourish," I have no one but myself to blame if I am misunderstood.

In the present case, Father James does misunderstand me.

When I expressed my view of capital punishment, I was very careful and precise. What I wrote was, "I am opposed to the use of capital punishment."

In other words, I am not opposed to capital punishment. I am opposed to the use of capital punishment. There is a gargantuan difference between the two views.

In principle, I have no doubt that the State----that agency identified by St. Paul as "bearing the sword"---may legitimately take someone's life in specified and pre-determined circumstances. Indeed, I don't know how any Bible-believing Christian could say otherwise. The Old and New Testaments are at one on this point.

As a practical matter, however, I oppose the State's recourse to this form of punishment, for a host of reasons, all of them moral, most of them pastoral, none of them original.

There is no need to rehearse my reasoning here. I explained my views on this subject in an article for Touchstone several years ago, reporting on the night I spent in the Federal Prison in Terre Haute, while covering the execution of Timothy McVeigh.

See http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=15-07-043-f

I ask those who disagree with me to consider a single fact: Since the discovery of DNA and its application to the establishing of identity, more than 300 American prisoners have been released from life-sentences and even death sentences. DNA analysis proved them to be innocent.

It is a VERY risky business to take someone's life, and it is not one bit less risky when it is done by the State.

Finally, I recommend the movie, CONVICTION, an impressive dramatization of one of those cases.

Yes, Father, I caught the difference. In that you come to the same fundamental conclusion I have. Although there are times, I think, when it still might be used, but in a much more limited way that it is currently. It should require an even higher standard of evidence that "beyond a reasonable doubt'. That is inherent in the Old Testament if I am not mistaken.

Even if someone is convicted on that higher basis, I would remove the death penalty if the person made a full and complete confession of his crimes.

The movie, "Dead Man Walking" is also a good one to view. It was the threat of capital punishment that moved the killer to acknowledge his crime and arrive at some level of compunction. By God's mercy, I would pray for his slavation.

Briefly, a male priesthood (and deacons) preserves the ontological distinction between the Creator and created in our worship and thus Christian culture.

Could you expand on this.

Met. Hiliarion Alfeyev says that it is about the Fatherhood of God.

I have come to the conculsion that it is ontological in nature and expresses the difference in the way men offer themselves for others and the way women offer themselves which also dovetails with service in the military.

We refer to God as Father and use the pronoun He to refer to God not to denote that God is male (a favorite feminist complaint) but to describe the nature of His relationship to us. God is Creator. But if God is Mother or if we refer to God as She, then it implies God's manner of creation is similar to created woman.

Within the creation only women bring forth new life (the male contributes only one-half the genetic code in a single sperm cell that dies after it penetrates the egg). In other words, if God is Mother and not Father, then Her manner of creation would be perceived by what we know and see -- life comes from woman -- and the ontological distinction between Creator and created collapses.

(In historical terms this describes early paganism, but given that today even the atheist and agnostic perceives of God as monotheist -- a testimony of the influence of the Church in culture -- the only possibility that remains for us if Christian culture collapses is some kind hedonistic nihilism. A return to paganism is a conceptual impossibility as I see it. Watch for an increase in deviant sexuality and the exaltation of violence. Suicide may become epidemic. Priests, are you listening? You need to prepare for this.)

Christ came as a man. Christ also gives new life -- His body and blood -- which, again, is replicated with the creation by the female (from whom do we derive the nourishment to develop in the womb?). His maleness/manhood assures that the substance of the new life He offers is wholly distinct from the creation even though the manner in which it is offered employs it (His flesh, the materiality of the bread and wine, and so forth -- the sacramental dimension).

Priests offer this new life in the Chalice. A male priesthood ensures no symbolic confusion between the Uncreated Christ and the created male because a male body cannot create new life. If a female offers the Eucharistic Gifts symbolic confusion is the inevitable result since two manners of creativity are offered -- new life through the woman, new life through the Chalice.

Like the priest, the space he occupies from which the Gifts are consecrated and emerge to be consumed must, in my opinion, be exclusively male. Variance from this rubric undermines the structures by which we clarify the distinction between Creator and created. And I don't buy the argument that because altar boys have no sacramental responsibilities (they are tonsured, not ordained), altar girls should be allowed. The priest does not sanctify the space. Christ does.

Now, if this sounds too abstract, look what happens once the the distinctions start to meld. First up is sexual confusion of the first order. Here I have the Episcopal Church in mind who in just a few decades after allowing woman priests became the ecclesiastical poster-boy (-girl? -person?) for homosexual activism.

Of course the feminist juggernaut could have been resisted if the Episcopalian Church did not have a preponderance of homosexual clergy in its ranks which robbed it of masculine identity and confidence, but it took the feminists to complete the institutional self-immolation. It shows us that a male priesthood is not enough. The priesthood (indeed, all ranks of clergy) must also be masculine. Their collapse is instructive.

I realize this is a bit vague but I am working on it. You see too the relationship between the collapse of ontological distinctions and sexual-identity confusion are related.

Do you foresee at any point of supporting any of your contentions with Scripture, the Patristic Fathers, or the fathers of our generation? Personally, I find your increasing obsession with homosexuality & "sexual-identity confusion" bordering on absurdity and of your own creation. And it is not as if the issue has never been addressed, even speculatively, and I would think Fr. Hopko's "On the Male Character of the Priesthood," and the volume he edited, Women and the Priesthood (with essays from Met. Kallistos Ware, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, George Barrois, & Nicholas Arseniev among others) would be an excellent place to start.

I have written extensively regarding this issue of "fundamental binaries," and your closed-mindedness to opinions other than your own "set" is quite surprising for someone who promotes the "public square" of discussion.

If I am not mistaken, Women and the Priesthood, published by SVS Press, is contained in the Google Books collection, if not in it's entirety, in large part (There is a program for the Mac that lets you download Google Books - each page is a graphic file - and there must be a similar program for Windows & Linux). I'm not sure if the book itself is still in print. Fr. Hopko' s article was originally printed in the SVS Theological Quarterly and is also included in this book.

Thanks Michael. I just found Women and the Priesthood in an updated printing on Amazon. I just added that to my wish list. I have to now wait until my birthday in the summer to order it as a birthday present for myself.

Until then I have to give highm HIGH marks to SVS press for their popoular patristic series. I am greatly enjoying these patristic books to no end. Get them all if you can. Your wife may yell at you, but its worth it!

It does not strike me as the least bit inappropriate or impertinent to question whether your "development" is "joining with the Fathers before you." Somehow, TS Eliot's "brass tacks" in your hands would read, "birth, copulation, homosexuality, sexuality-identity, and death." You have continuously scolded me for making a 3% epidemiological anomaly of human behaviour "paramount," yet you champion homosexuality, gay rights, & gay marriage as the end of western civilization. More than the endemic, pervasive soul-destroying indifference that allows a photographer to continue to photograph a man about to be hit by a train, rather than rescue him, a starving child being watched by a vulture, or the ethic of "don't snitch" that hides heinous & vicious behaviour. Go figure.

I personally have found not a single source to support your contention that the "goal" of homosexuality is to "neuter" the Fatherhood of our God, or that homosexuality is a "paucity" of masculinity; in fact, theoretical research would suggest exactly the opposite. You would not know this, however, because you so grossly limit your data set that your conclusions can only be skewed. And yes, I disapprove because it is dishonest and manipulative, theologically and academically. If you are, in fact, speaking "in the public square," you are obligated to complete the portrait in its entirety.

I offer a minor contribution to the discussion about the “why” of the male-only priesthood. As in Fr. Hans’s case, it would need to be developed further. As we all know this subject, although it stands in universal agreement in terms of the Tradition, has never been ‘dogmatized’ by the Church. I am in agreement with Michael Bauman that it may well be time to do so.

Even if we edit out the specific words about what some consider the culturally contextual issue of head covering, St. Paul provides a clear picture of the Creator’s design that shaped the mind of the Church:

“...for he (man) is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. For man is not from the woman, but the woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but the woman for man... Nevertheless, neither is man independent of the woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.”

If one has listened to the hymnology of the Church and studied the Holy Fathers, one knows the direct typological link in the mind of the Church between Adam and Christ (man) and Eve and the Theotokos (and in her the Church [woman]). This typological link is perhaps most clearly expressed when the Apostle Paul speaks of how the Mystery of marriage is inseparably linked to the mystical union of Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5).

It is from within the context of the link between Adam and Christ (the New Adam) and between Eve and the Blessed Virgin Mary (the new Eve, “the mother of all the living”: the Church) that the Church understands the roles unique to male and female. Thus the passage quoted earlier points us to their very profound understanding when read in the context of Christ and the Theotokos (the image of the Church):

‘...for Christ is the image and glory of God, but the Theotokos (and, through her, the Church) is the glory of Christ. For Christ did not originate from the Theotokos, but the Theotokos from Christ. Nor was Christ made for the Theotokos, but the Theotokos for Christ ... Nevertheless, neither is Christ independent of the Theotokos, nor the Theotokos independent of Christ, in the Lord. For as the Theotokos came from Christ, even so Christ also was incarnate through her; but all things are from God.’

I am the first to admit that this is not an easy thing to articulate, but I am if the opinion that the ‘answer’ is somehow to be found in this iconic understanding of male and female. I believe C.S. Lewis wrote something to the effect that if this icon is discarded/destroyed/ignored we ultimately wind up worshipping a different God. Time and corruption have proven his understanding to be tragically accurate.

Unfortunately, few will read your excellent point, because it came so late in the discussion. I hope Peter, and those with daughters, are the exception. The role of the Theotokos as "God-bearer" has redeemed woman, as Christ redeemed Adam. Our daughters need to understand they were not created to be "wilely women" who usurp the role of men, but women worthy of honor in the eyes of God.

Michael, I know this is a little off-topic but I wanted to stress to you that I have visited Wichita several times and have received wonderful hospitality from His Grace. I've always thought that he was a great evangelist and planter of missions. I still do. (One of my stops in Wichita is Eighth Day Books, a haven of intellect and faith.)

I should also add that attacks on this icon are every bit as insidious - if not more so - as the iconoclasm of the 8th and 9th centuries, the victory over which we celebrate with fanfare and processions. The current attacks should be an occasion for reflection and sobriety as the Sunday of Orthodoxy approaches. Through the prayers of our holy Fathers, may we be found as discerning, courageous, and faithful as they.

Actually, I really enjoyed George's editorial tonight. I only disagree with one thing he said, and that is that this issue is a no brainer. That is the typical status quo argument which is baseless and meaningless and has people discount even cogent arguments.

The rest of what he said was pretty good stuff with lots of credibility....so, on balance, you fooled me George.

Why isn't women in combat such a no brainer? Well, we never had women's hockey and we never had women's basketball, but those are two great sports. Probably didn't have women's soccer at first, either. I'm not sure if this is masculinization of women or if it is just good healthy competition. (Women have always been competitive, long before women's hockey started 30 years ago or so).

As I sit here, I can tell you there are certainly problems when women wear the pants in the family, but Lord knows it happens plenty; probably here, too.

You sold me on one thing; women, if they go into a combat role, ought to meet the same physical test standards as men and should not have a women's standard per se. And, I'm also convinced women in combat would be required to be in their own unit and that serving alongside men would be wrong for many reasons. Because of these types of difficulties; I, frankly, don't think it is worth the trouble.

Yet another example of blurring the binary distinction between life and death. This is the contemporary equivalent of boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk which is forbidden in 3 places in the Bible.

Somewhere in this dialog, George made an important point not to be missed. To some degree, Adam abdicated his responsibility and failed to protect Eve. We see this in society today. Too many women have been abandoned by the men in their lives; their fathers and husbands. It is the absence of men that helps to facilitate this confusion in roles.

To Father John, God allowed some women to be "equal to the Apostles."

Father Pat, my sincere apology. I meant your father was NOT subject to his hormones! So sorry!

Gail, we men have indeed abrogated our responsibilities to our women. Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed this out fifty years ago in his magesterial treatise on the black family. The past was prologue, now marriage is increasinly passe among whites and in so many other ways men fail their women.

George and Gail, it is not the Christian paradigm that encourages men to abandon their wives and children. It is the secular paradigm which includes normailzation of homosexuality preceeded by the glamorization of fornication. Men of character simply don't abandon people. Men of character simply don't violate themselves and others by uncontroled sexual activity and violence, even in mind.

There are three poisonous ideas in the black community which need to be eradicated: 1. A man is someone who gets as many girls pregnant as possible; 2. Education and learning are 'white' things; 3. Violence is the way out of poverty. Of course, these things are relics of slavery and have been kept alive by the power elite's to destroy black communities and families. They are especially tragic when they come from the mouths of the so-called 'black leaders' who push anger and hatred and unforgiveness at every opportunity.

Abortion has always been an instrument of genocide against the blacks and other undesirables. Martin Luther King's message that called all of us to repentance and healing has been forgotten, twisted and trashed by his successors.

Of course it is not just minorities whom are harmed but our entire culture by the abandonment of heirarchical, life affirming realities of the Christian revelation. We have done a horrible job of living it and teaching it. Now, as Fr. Hans points out and MS proves, if anyone brings it up, the hammer comes out.

Marriage as understood in the Church is the antidote. That includes a proper recognition of the hierarchy.
that orders the interrelationships of God, man, woman and child as well as the ordering of the Church.

You forgot one very important point. in your list of problems with the African Community. That point is that through the government, we owe them welfare and other benefits not as an help in hard times, but as a way of life from one generation to another. It is the welfare state that has created a illegitimacy rate of over 70 % in the black community and teen age girls who get pregnant so that they can go on welfare.

My only quibble is what you say about the legacy of slavery on the black family today. If anything, black families were more intact during slavery and after. One method of control that slavemasters had over their slaves was to threaten to break up the families if one of the spouses got out of hand. The inability to take a wife and children likewise kept many black men from revolting and/or escaping.

The weapon that destroyed the black family was Welfare. As Dr Ben Carson said in his recent speeches, his mother --an illiterate, single mother--refused to go on Welfare. She said the reason for her obsitanance is that she saw that whoever went on it never got off.

Michael, I'm not so sure about these stereotypes. I went to jr high with lot of black kids and to the best of my knowledge they all came from intact families. Some had fathers who were blue-collar (like mine) but some had fathers who owned businesses as well. There was no substantial difference in temperament, clothing or attitude between those who came from intact families and my white peers.

In retrospect, I can now tell those who had a "ghetto attitude" came from a different profile but they were in the minority or at least I should say were not the dominant cohort (we're talking 40 years ago, as opposed to nowadays). Friendships and camaraderie between us were easy to come by between us and those black kids who had the same middle-class attitudes.

Anyway, a lot of the pathology that exists today seems to be endemic because integration deprived the black communities of a viable middle-class and economic vitality. I hate to say it but this first came to my knowledge because Lewis Farrakhan openly stated it. Since then (or even before then), black intellectuals have said more or less the same thing.

It came to mind recently when I saw a TV show featuring some NFL football players doing good with some kids. The one that struck me was Justin Tuck of the NY Giants. He spook emotionally about being bullied growing up because he was smart and enjoyed learning. He met a young black boy in NY who was going through the same thing. Being told he wasn't black because he liked learning. Justin Tuck helped him and will likely remain in contact.

So it is being worked on. Intact families is a big part of it. Strong males who will mentor is another.

Integration alone isn't to blame for this, and Louis Farrakhan has an odious agenda all his own. It's a complex story, but I'll try to sketch a brief and admittedly oversimplified outline here:

Usually the story of race in America goes like this: in the South, blacks were victims of slavery and then segregation. Some left for the North (and fewer for the West) beginning during WWI. After the 1960s, when the civil rights laws were passed, discrimination was over and everyone ought to have lived happily ever after. According to liberals, any inequality was lingering white racism, and according to the conservatives, it was a result of black cultural pathologies.

That story is told everywhere - in our textbooks, our pop culture, our public discourse, you name it. It lets the white liberals of the North and West blame the South, and conservative Southerners say hey! the system has changed, so why are you blaming us? Which are two mutually reinforcing narratives.

The part that's left out is extremely important. Blacks in the north and west faced racial housing covenants, discriminatory lending practices, and redlining, all of which kept them largely confined to certain neighborhoods in a de facto form of segregation. Anyone living in those neighborhoods had a much harder time getting access to credit, and their homes were of lower value; this system ensured that blacks had less access to wealth than whites. Urban renewal and mass transit projects often bulldozed right through black-owned business districts. It should be noted that the state was behind most of these practices, although some (particularly FHA housing programs) claimed to support the free market.

Nevertheless some blacks earned enough money to leave once fair housing laws were passed and enforced (in the 1960s and 1970s). But right as the black middle class left, the white middle class also left the cities - the suburbs were where the jobs and wealth were at that time. If there had been jobs in the inner cities, there would have been enough working role models in black communities, demonstrating the value of discipline and hard work every day. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. In some cases, it was almost impossible for inner-city residents to even get to areas with available jobs (LA got sued for this and was forced to provide better mass transit to poor areas).

So yes, the end of discrimination did help create the ghetto, *but* so housing policies supported by the left and the right alike in the post-war era were more fundamental.

My larger point is that it's not all about intact families or culture. Economics and politics play a role as well - the ghetto didn't arise out of nowhere, but was the result of discriminatory policies. Economics and culture go hand in hand - it's much easier to keep a family together without having to deal with financial stress, and the lessons learned on the job (ie rewards for dedication and hard work) translate into family life as well.

Your point would be clearer if the phrases "our women" and "their women" lost their respective possessive pronouns, as the use of unnecessary modifiers leads to misunderstandings.

Of course, if one's view is that women are men's possessions, (note the if/then construction, I accuse you of nothing) then one has gone well beyond and Orthodox teaching.

A more important lesson could be drawn here, one of the responsibilities we have to each other, responsibilities that modern society relegates to a personal and individual sphere and banishes (indeed, declares to necessarily be collectivist or socialist) from the public square as resolutely as it banishes traditional morality from the public square.

Just as our marital and parental relationships are to be mutual and based in love, so our communal responsibilities are to be mutual and based in love. The answer to "And who is my neighbor" was manifestly not "those whom you judge to be deserving."

The left wishes to relegate morality to the personal and private sphere, and the right wishes to relegate charity to the personal and private sphere. The result is a public square that is the most un-Orthodox of things: All law and no love.

In order to be clear the construction goes both ways, "I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine" is quite a bit different from "I am an autonomous individual and my woman is mine."

The saying "As you pray, so you believe" is as much about how we say as what we say, and has application to everything we say or write.

George's "our women" and "their women" is both possessive and in the impersonal third person, and does not nearly capture the relationship that you (and your wife) have expressed here. The relational difference between a man and "my woman" is as different from that of a man and his wife as a house is from a home.

To put that another way, I seriously doubt you introduce yourself and your wife in this manner: "I'm Michael Bauman and this is my woman, Mrs. Michael Bauman."

CQ, while not exactly in the words you offer, I do in fact, introduce her and she me in appreciably that way, particularly on the occasions when we go out dancing where the reality might be challenged by the prevailing cultural norm.

No thumbs down from me,sir! On the contrary…The problem is,I’m afraid,many of our Orthodox do think the Genesis account of creation is a myth.I highly recommend,”Genesis,Creation,and Early Man” by Fr.Seraphim Rose.
I don't, there is more and more data that people prior to written language were more advanced than thought previously. There is a huge object on mr Ararat that has stone age tools, maybe 9,000 to 13,000 years ago. Prehistoric people in Germany seem to passed property down thru the father and the mother seems to be outside the tribal group. Some of these prehistoric farmers had tools buried with them while others didn't which means wealth inequality is as old as the Bible mentions about mightly men of renown and the Tower of Babel tale which could be the early summerians.

It all depends on what you mean by myth. The first chapter of Genesis tells us that God created the world, but was never meant to be a scientific account of how He created it. The doctrine of the Orthodox Church is that God created the Heaven and Earth from nothing, not that He created the earth in 7 24 hour days a few thousand years ago Seraphim Rose may have been a holy man but was not educated in Orthodox theology. He wrote some things that are of value, but is highly overrated as an Orthodox theologian. One would do better to study the writings of recognized Orthodox theologians than those of a self-taught writer who may have developed a cult like following, but really lacked the background and education to act as an authority of the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

The Summerians, Assyrians have the flood story, the Greeks and Romans have the flood story, many cultures have the same tale. The Garden of Eden is also somewhat mention by Summerians and Assyrians and Greeks and Romans. In the Roman tale, in the age of Saturn everything was pefect.

Many ancient civilizations had flood stories because they were located along the great river systems. The Genesis flood story is unique in that it is told from two perspectives: the Afro-Arabian Horites and the Mesopotamian Horites. Noah lived in the region of Lake Chad approximately 2490-2415 BC, when the Sahara experienced a wet period (Karl W. Butzer 1966). This is the period of the Old Kingdom, a time of great cultural and technological achievement in Egypt.

She did that Reputation. Out of all the Byzantine Generals Belsarius was IMHO the most affective, and I felt sorry for him the most. I don’t know why? I don’t think it was just because of his wife. I don’t know I just did. Well, Justinian didn't always give him full support and made Belsarius support the campaign in Italy from his wealth since Belsarius had a lot of weath and some was from booty. Maybe that why you feel sorry for him.

Well, I found this interesting going thru the 100 largest cities in the US white poverty stats. The South doesn't come any worst than the North or the midwest. Probably the worst were the two white states of Kentucky and West Virginia but many Southern large states whites range as low as 5.4 percent in Montrgremy Al or 3.8 in Plano Tx to usually 9 percent to 13 percent similar to a lot of Northen Cities. George would be surprise that California does low on the white poverty for cities like San Diego, Long Beach, and San Jose and Anaheim is only a little over 5 precent for whites. La is higher at over 11 percent for whites. New York City is 10.8 percent and Dayton Oh is one of the highest at 17 percent explaining the Republicans inability to get Oh for high poverty. The Republicans only won about two states that hav high white poverty because of the social issues and coal mining Kentucky and West Virginia but as I stated some of the mid west has the same problem as those two states.

t all depends on what you mean by myth. The first chapter of Genesis tells us that God created the world, but was never meant to be a scientific account of how He created it. The doctrine of the Orthodox Church is that God created the Heaven and Earth from nothing, not that He created the earth in 7 24 hour days a few thousand years ago Seraphim Rose may have been a holy man but was not educated in Orthodox theology. He wrote some things that are of value, but is highly overrated as an Orthodox theologian. One would do better to study the writings of recognized Orthodox theologians than those of a self-taught writer who may have developed a cult like following, but really lacked the background and education to act as an authority of the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Well, one doesn't have to say its 6,000 years but there is a lot of pre-history that is similar to the Bible in the ancient near east texts, the flood is the most universal tale. There has been places and things mention in ancient pagan sources that verify things like the Iliad and Odyssey. not saying the Greek Gods exist but a lot ancient literature turns out to be true.

Myth: familial, tribal, or cultural stories that provide a context for a common understanding of the origins and ethos of the group and a focal point of unity. They are poetic expressions of the truth (at their best). False stereotypes at their worst.

Science: largely accurate empirical, repeatable, but incomplete explanations of how things work

Revelation: the process and act of God personally telling us who He is, What He does, and what He expects.

As orders of knowledge I rank them thus: Revelation; myth; science. The trick is in understanding which is which and what is authentic rather than fantasy or lies.

Ideally they work together the lower nested in the higher.

In our culture they tend to work at odds with one another each denying the validity of the others. The result of the lackof understanding of a proper hierarchies of being, knowledge and values.

Father, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing: creation, in its fullness, is revelation. What you call narrative is what I mean by myth. Good science is not disconnected from myth as the myth is a function of processing the revelation.

Fr. Hans, I've read Gilder, but not in awhile. For me, myth and narrative are pretty much the same and real "myth" is grounded in the ineffable experience or apprehension of the divine. Science, the attempt to codify, quantify and rationalize flows from the other two.

Science founded on philosophical naturalism has cut itself off from the source of wonder, order and wisdom it needs to function properly.

Father Hans, ever read or seen performed Ionesco's "Exit the King"? It touches on the matter of intellect and the passions divorced from a matrix of honor and holiness although in a quite oblique and unusal way.

When I first encountered it, I had not even taken baby steps yet toward Christianity. An interesting piece. Ionesco was Romainian raised there before the Soviets took over. This play, at least, was influenced by Orthodox thought and practice.

The Theater of the Absurd movement eventually wrote itself into nilistic oblivion pretty much ending with Samuel Beckett's "play" that was 30 seconds of heavy breathing on a dark stage. However, Ionesco's plays were a bright spot, revealling and displaing for ridicule the banal hypocrisy of modernity and the indicating the destruction that follows. Exit the King was a high point.

For sheer zany fun, his The Bald Soprano, which I preformed in while in college was the best.

I never saw anything attractive in conventional churches, either Protestant of any stripe or Catholic. Growing up, the Orthodox Church in Wichita was notable primarily for one man who, while on the city council, got up from his chair and went up to a fellow councilman and punched him out of his chair. It made the cover of Look Magazine. Later the same man was arrested and put in jail because he was taking high quality beef for the subscription beef franchise he ran, selling it out the back door and replacing it with inferior cuts to the subscribers. Not a really good witness.

As I mentioned to Mr. Stankovich, Freidich Nietzche was an influence on me that pushed we toward Christianity because I wanted to know the truth which he sought and so spectacularly did not find.

I took me about 20 years (or Lord is patient) before I walked into an Orthdox Church. Haven't left, for one reason: Jesus Christ is in the Church in a way I simply have never seen or experienced anywhere else (and I've look a lot of places).

The Church is not only a safe haven in the midst of the nihlist storm of modernity and post-modernity, but it also is the antidote for all the poisons in our beings. The Church is abundant life in the midst of darkness and death.

As a character in another play I was in said: "What is deep, I will have deeply, what is good, I will have well".

It is, frankly up to each of us to drink as deeply as we are able of the life giving waters and settle for nothing less. It is simple, love, forgive and repent.

To do that requires that we know the depravity from which we are called to flee. It requires that we know Jesus Christ into whose arms we fling ourselves. For me, that often involves entreating the Theotokos to bring me to her son so that my heart and mind might be transformed to accept His abundance and grace. The same Jesus Christ who was kind enough to introduce Himself to me on a cold hill overlooking Rockford, Illinois one January night in 1968 and whom I did not meet again, really, until I walked into the door of the Orthodox Church in Wichita, KS 18.75 years later.

All too often, it seems, we prefer to wallow and party in worldly excrement. The type of things that Ionesco long ago held up for ridicule and the Scriptures and Patristic Tradition tirelessly warn us against. The kinds of things so evident on this blog and in my own heart all to often.

Well, Hispanics are not that much better, in Mexico and Latin American coutries there was more excepted of common law marriage unlike Blacks, Hispanics mainly form Mexico in the US are to be the major group in California and Texas and they have an out of wedlock rate over 50 percent. Blacks are not the major concern Hispanics are and most have legal status in the US.

The weapon that destroyed the black family was Welfare. As Dr Ben Carson said in his recent speeches, his mother –an illiterate, single mother–refused to go on Welfare. She said the reason for her obsitanance is that she saw that whoever went on it never got off.

Well, granted they are people that have two low pay jobs to get ends meat but our politicans who would not penalized companies for hiring people here illegality expanded the number of people that juggle jobs but who have children that quality for lunch programs. Some people need to develop skills among blacks, low income whites and legal hispanics to try to avoid working but qualifying for welfare programs. Republicans like Marco Rubio have not address this problem in the Latin community.

Bishop Tikhon FitzgeraldMar 29, 2:22 PM Daniel Fall, that letter WAS written to Metropolitan Jonah and every other member of the Church, and its author always assumed he had Universal Jurisdiction... –

Paul StasiMar 29, 9:59 PM Ages, I don't entirely disagree with your post. If memory serves St. Mary was kept from venerating by a force which could not be seen... –

Mike MyersMar 29, 2:44 PM Unfortunately, Mr. Myers, as Freud observed, we are the "mirrored needs of what people think of us . . ." Let’s begin with your quotation.... –

M. StankovichMar 28, 9:21 AM Unfortunately, Mr. Myers, as Freud observed, we are the "mirrored needs of what people think of us." You have transcended nothing. Projective defenses are extraordinarily... –

Bishop Tikhon FitzgeraldMar 27, 8:55 PM Your unsupported opinion, though, Michael Baumann, is beyond disgusting. You contributed nothing to that relationship.that was helpful to anybody. Is it just laziness or is... –

Mike MyersMar 27, 7:31 PM Mike, for someone who "doesn't suffer fools gladly," you sure seem to hold a lot of foolish opinions. The inability to see the Scriptural antipathy... –

George MichalopulosMar 27, 5:20 PM Mike, for someone who "doesn't suffer fools gladly," you sure seem to hold a lot of foolish opinions. The inability to see the Scriptural antipathy... –